Elli Touli
Abstract
The choices a conservator makes reflect not only their own ethics and those of their profession, but also the ethics of the society in which they live. As conservators, we frequently encounter animal materials (whether as part of objects or as conservation resources), but rarely do we consider them morally on equal terms with humans. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism, famously wrote “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”.
Peter Singer, another influential ethical philosopher, in his book Animal Liberation (1975) described this phenomenon, called speciesism, as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”. He argues that this discrimination that most humans make against non-human animals, long reinforced by Western philosophy and Christianity, rests on the same bias as racism and sexism. As society’s moral code is constantly evolving, it is not unlikely that future generations will consider our actions towards animals and the environment as immoral as we now consider slavery and colonialism.
Today, we recognize that conservation of environmental and cultural heritage are deeply intertwined, but the speciesist ideology is still deeply rooted in our minds and practice. We see ourselves as part of nature, and yet as the most important part of it. Not only do we use animal materials (such as glues) that originate from the suffering of other beings, or display zoological collections without the sensitivity we extend to human remains, but, more concerning, there is hardly any research or conversation on speciesism within the conservation field.
We need to raise the questions: Where and why do we draw the line between the species we love, care for and respect and those we exploit without hesitation? How did this animal object or animal material come into our hands and what environmental cost does it carry? Which alternatives already exist, and which do we still have to develop? Do we value respect for non-human animals more highly, or the historicity of materials? What are our moral obligations? And how do our choices of materials, or the narratives we construct around collections, reflect our collective conscience?
In the end, we may not yet have all the answers, but we can at least begin the necessary conversation. After all, we will not be handed directions on how to act, but rather the possibility of making an informed decision. As sustainability becomes central to cultural heritage preservation, addressing speciesism is no longer optional but essential for conservation to remain ethically credible.
This presentation arises from the research undertaken for my forthcoming thesis, which examines the ethical implications of conservation materials through the lens of sustainability and the critique of speciesism.